Jeff Sessions urges California governor not to sign ‘sanctuary’ bill into law

As reported by the Washington Times:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday singled out California Governor Jerry Brown and urged him not to sign into law a bill that would further restrict local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The legislation was approved by lawmakers over the weekend after the governor helped draft a series of amendments. Mr. Sessions called it a public safety risk and encouraged California and other jurisdictions that have sanctuary laws or policies shielding illegal immigrants to change their ways.

“Such policies undermine the moral authority of law and undermine the safety of the jurisdictions that adopt them,” Mr. Sessions said as he spoke before a group of federal law enforcement officials in Oregon.

The California Values Act, passed Saturday by state lawmakers, is expected to be signed by the governor. The law prohibits local police and sheriffs from asking a person about his or her immigration status or from participating in immigration enforcement efforts. Under the law, local law enforcement agencies, including those that oversee jails, will be able to share information with federal immigration agents and transfer people into their custody if they have previously been convicted of one of some 800 crimes, mostly felonies and misdemeanors that can be charged as felonies. Cooperation will be banned if the person has only minor offense convictions on his or her record. …

Click here to read the full article

CA bill would bar landlords from reporting immigrant tenants to ICE

As reported by the L.A. Daily News:

A Spanish-speaking tenant recently asked the landlord of a Los Angeles slum building for a key to its new laundry facility when the landlord reportedly snapped: “We don’t rent to undocumented Mexicans anymore.”

In another case, a landlord threatened to call immigration authorities on a family after they complained to Los Angeles building officials in December of slum conditions with the illegally converted garage they were living in, according to a letter sent Wednesday to Gov. Jerry Brown from the Inner City Law Center, which is based on L.A.’s Skid Row.

City officials had ordered the garage vacated and the landlord had tried to evict the family without paying the required relocation-assistance payment, according to the nonprofit law firm. …

Click here to read the full article

California sues Trump over DACA

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Monday formally challenged the Trump administration’s directive to rescind a program protecting unauthorized young immigrants from deportation.

Becerra, joining the states of Minnesota, Maryland and Maine, announced the lawsuit flanked by two “dreamers,” young women who were brought to United States illegally but were allowed to stay here, study and hold jobs after applying for the now-imperiled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

“They should not be punished for things that were done by others,” Becerra said of the DACA recipients. “We don’t bait and switch in this country.”

Becerra said his lawsuit, which he previewed last week and planned to file Monday in the Northern District of California, was meant to “immediately address the president’s unlawful and mean spirited actions” by alleging his administration violated the due process protections of DACA applicants by putting their personal information at risk. …

Click here to read the full story

University of California Sues Trump Administration over DACA Decision

Janet NapolitanoThe University of California has sued the Trump administration for its decision to rescind the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy.

UC lawyers allege that the rights of the nation’s largest college system were violated when President Donald Trump, on “nothing more than unreasoned executive whim,” dumped DACA.

Many conservatives complain that President Barack Obama issued DACA in violation of the Constitution, after failing to win congressional approval for a “pathway to citizenship” for 11.5 million illegal aliens.

UC President Janet Napolitano is especially knowledgeable regarding DACA, because as Obama’s Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security between 2009 to 2013, she issued the memorandum, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children,” to stop up to 2 million deportations of those brought illegally to the U.S. as children.

Although the title of Napolitano’s DACA memo talked about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) using their professional discretion to decide deportation issues, the document’s language specifically mandated that for any individual meeting Napolitano’s criteria, ICE and CBP would “prevent low priority individuals from being placed into removal proceedings or removed from the United States.”

Breitbart News reported that of the 790,000 eligible aliens that enrolled in DACA, California has 223,000 California, or 28 percent of DACA enrollees. That is more than the combined totals of the next four states, including Texas, Illinois, Arizona and New York; and also more than in the lowest 28 states combined.

Despite the constant emphasis by DACA supporters about vulnerable children being victimized by their parents’ actions, DACA only covers aliens between the ages of 15 to 30 years old. The median age of a DACA enrollee is 25 years old.

One of the reasons that California is such a magnet to so-called “Dreamers” is the spectacular array of college educational benefits made available through the 2003 passage of AB 540, a waiver of out-of-state tuition for illegal aliens; and the 2011 passage of the California DREAM Act, which made all “undocumented” immigrants eligible for financial aid if they attended high school in the state or received a GED.

Financial aid programs available to “Dreamers” include Cal Grants for tuition; a Board of Governor’s fee waiver; and institution-specific grants and scholarships for UC and California State University campuses. Illegal aliens can also receive the UC’s California DREAM Loan Program and resources through campus Undocumented Student Centers.

Napolitano told NPR, “Neither I, nor the University of California, take the step of suing the federal government lightly, especially not the very agency that I led.”

She added: “It is imperative, however, that we stand up for these vital members of the UC community. They represent the best of who we are — hard working, resilient and motivated high achievers.”

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

What happens when California becomes a ‘sanctuary state’?

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

California’s so-called “sanctuary state” bill, introduced by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León as a direct response to President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to deport “bad hombres” and undocumented immigrants, is well on its way to becoming law.

One of the most contentious legislative issues in a year rife with racial tension, Senate Bill 54 pits nationalists who have long called for the removal of the undocumented community from an increasingly Latino state against advocates on the left who believe the president is unfairly targeting a vulnerable population of Mexican immigrants.

The measure has already passed the state Senate and is expected to win approval in the Assembly. It’s unclear where Gov. Jerry Brown stands on the bill, but his office is in talks with de León to iron out any issues before it reaches his desk.

Unless Brown pulls the plug, Californians will likely live in a “sanctuary state” by next year. Keep reading as we explain what that means. …

Click here to read the full article 

California’s Attempt At “Massive Resistance” as Sanctuary State

Maria Ortiz, at left, a Mexican immigrant has been living in the United States for 23 years. "I am single. I work so hard to stay. I never needed support from the government," Ortiz said. She is not a citizen and works as a janitor, she said during an immigration protest outside Rep. Ed Royce's office in Brea. ///ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: – MINDY SCHAUER, ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER – Shot 111713 – immig.fast.11.19 Advocates for immigration reform will camp our near the office of Rep. Ed Royce for five days, where they will stage a fast. They are asking OC's Republican leaders in Congress to publicly support an overhaul to the nation's immigration laws, including the so-called pathway to citizenship that would create a process for some 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally the right to become citizens.

California’s decision to become a “Sanctuary State” and defy the federal government on immigration, likely to become law later this month, places California in the company of state’s rights extremists that once tried to stop public school integration by much the same means.

In 1956, in response to the Supreme Court’s 1954 school integration decision, the state of Virginia devised a theory that it had the right to defy a federal law it did not like and could retain its racially segregated public schools. This became known as Massive Resistance, state sponsored resistance to federal law. California now seems set to go down the same path with its Sanctuary State bill that tries to prevent federal immigration law enforcement.

Drawing from pre-Civil War ideas that states could nullify a federal law they did not like, Virginia determined to stop integration of its public schools by “interposing” itself between its segregated schools and the federal government that told them to desegregate.  Virginia passed a statute refusing to cooperate with federal directives to integrate its schools by every means the state had, including closing public schools rather than desegregate them.

This is essentially what Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon is doing with his Senate Bill 54. It would prohibit state and local law enforcement from using their resources to “investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes” (legislative analysis). Constitutionally this is little different than what Virginia tried to do to stop integration 60 years ago.

Before the Civil War, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina devised the idea that states could nullify federal laws and find them unconstitutional. The Civil War ended efforts at nullification of federal laws. Interposition was a 20th Century variation on this, and it was no more successful. Virginia claimed state power to declare federal actions to force school integration invalid as de Leon wants to declare federal immigration practices invalid.

Many California communities have agreements with federal immigration officials that they detain illegal immigrates they have arrested for other offenses. SB 54 would make this illegal, but what’s really going on is the desire of de Leon that California to interpose itself between the Trump Administration and its enforcement of existing immigration laws, even at the cost of endangering innocent Californians.

“There’s a lot of bills in Sacramento right now that are tying our hands and keeping us from doing the jobs we’re elected to do, which is to protect the citizens in our county,” said Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens. “It’s very political. It’s anti-Trump.”

Massive Resistance was the same thing. As one congressman put it at the time, the objective was to stop the federal government from forcing “the mixing of the races” on the people of Virginia. In 1959, the school board of Price Edward County closed all its public schools and used the funds to set up private all white academies for the county’s white students, leaving black students with no schools to go to.

Eventually, federal courts did intervene in the 1960s and brought Massive Resistance to an end. The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that school desegregation was the law of the land, and while it took nearly a decade, Virginia did finally integrate its public schools.

Eventually de Leon and the legislature will lose its Sanctuary State crusade. There are jurisdictions within California that want to cooperate in the deportation of illegal immigrant criminals they are holding. Federal courts will not uphold a law that prevents a county sheriff from doing his or her job.

Sen. de Leon may also want to read the opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy in the 2012 ruling striking down an Arizona law that tried to set up its own immigration law. “The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” Kennedy wrote.

In 2010, Arizona was involved in its own version of Massive Resistance, trying to enact a law that it allowed it to enforce immigration law as it saw fit regardless of the preferences of the federal government. The Obama administration took Arizona to court and won.

It will not take long for the Trump administration to apply the same legal test to California’s State Sanctuary law.  Given Justice Kennedy’s opinion, California’s attempt to interpose itself between illegal immigrants and the enforcement of federal law will be no more successful than have been other forms of Massive Resistance throughout our history.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily.

Nearly 1 Million Illegal Aliens Now Have Driver’s Licenses in California

The State of California is on track to issue a total of one million driver’s licenses to illegal aliens by the end of 2017.

In 2013, California lawmakers passed legislation that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses if they can prove to the Department of Motor Vehicle their identity and state residency. The plan was one of the largest victories to date by the open borders lobby.

Years later, an estimated 905,000 illegal aliens have driver’s licenses in California, according to the Sacramento Bee, despite issuances beginning in 2015. The number of illegal aliens in California with driver’s licenses is likely to surpass one million before the end of this year.

In the first half of 2017 alone, more than 83,000 illegal aliens received driver’s licenses in California.

Soros groups are currently pushing a plan that would make it illegal to not rent a residence to an illegal alien because of their immigration status, Breitbart Texas reported.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

California Closer to Becoming ‘Sanctuary State’

The California State Assembly Judiciary Committee approved Democrats’ so-called “sanctuary state” bill on Wednesday, over the objections of law enforcement groups and Democrat-leaning sheriffs’ unions.

According to the Courthouse News Service (CNS), State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles) claims that his Senate Bill 54, the “California Values Act,” is designed to prohibit all law enforcement in California from any and all cooperation with what he has dubbed the “Trump Deportation Machine.”

Earlier this year, De León told the committee that “half his family is in the country illegally” and that his relatives regularly commit identity theft in order to work in the U.S.

For De León, the new bill is all about Trump. He reportedly said that if another Republican had won the presidency, his bill would not be necessary.

De León insists that his bill “doesn’t safeguard” criminals, but Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown, current president of the California Sheriffs Association, disagrees:

“We believe this bill provides sanctuary to criminals and makes our communities less safe,” Brown reportedly said. “SB 54 would result in many dangerous criminal offenders being released to our streets without proper communication and cooperation with immigration authorities.”

Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a substantively similar bill (AB 1081) in 2012. In his veto letter, Brown wrote, “I am unable to sign this bill as written,” saying the bill barred cooperation in some instances he believes were serious. “I believe it’s unwise to interfere with a sheriff’s discretion to comply with a detainer issued for people with these kinds of troubling criminal records,” he explained.

In spite of the fact that a many of the criminal alien gang members arrested in recent raids in Los Angeles had gang ties to the notoriously brutal El Salvadoran prison gang known as MS-13, and had committed serious crimes previously, almost all of them would, arguably, have been shielded by SB 54 if it were currently the law.

Tim Donnelly is a former California State Assemblyman and author, currently on a book tour for his new book: Patriot Not Politician: Win or Go Homeless. He ran for governor in 2014.

FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/tim.donnelly.12/

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

California Bills Target Private Business to Help Immigrants

As reported by NBC News:

California Democrats are expanding their efforts to resist President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigrants in the country illegally with bills aimed at limiting how much private businesses can cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

Democrats control all levels of state government, and leaders have vowed to resist Trump administration policies at every turn. Immigration is among their key issues, but most legislation so far has been aimed at limiting what police can do to help immigration authorities and providing additional state services and support to immigrants in the country illegally.

Now, two bills that advanced in the Assembly in the past week are taking aim at private businesses.

A measure that would bar landlords from disclosing tenants’ immigration status or reporting them to immigration officials passed the chamber. A bill prohibiting public and private employers from letting immigration agents come into their worksites or view their employee files cleared a committee. …

Click here to read the full article

What Exactly is the “Rule of Law”?

court gavelPart of the difficulty in finding common ground on the immigration debate in California is a different understanding of a basic governmental concept: the “rule of law.”

California officials have readily used the phrase when it comes to resisting the Trump Administration’s immigration policy.

Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, admonished the administration for stalking courthouses looking for people in the country illegally when she told the state legislature in her annual speech on the courts, “I submit to you today that the rule of law is being challenged.”

California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, in responding positively to a federal court’s injunction halting Trump’s executive order against sanctuary cities, declared, “This injunction is consistent with the rule of law.”

Yet, those opposed to sanctuary cities and California’s effort to become a sanctuary state ask that if people came into the country against the laws on the books, is not that a violation of the “rule of law”?

Some have even compared the efforts to ignore federal immigration laws to the nullification efforts future Confederate states used to challenge federal authority prior to the Civil War.

Differing views on what constitutes the rule of law intensifies the country’s political divide. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court will determine the law.

Cases before that court on the issue of state sovereignty have occurred in the past, of course. One case cited that may influence the outcome of a new Supreme Court test is Printz vs. United States.

This 1997 case, dealing with the Brady Gun Law, said the state could not compel local officials to execute federal law. The 5 to 4 majority declared that the Tenth Amendment to the constitution allowed the state to ignore a federal mandate, in this case requiring local law enforcement to enforce certain gun laws, because the constitution did not address the specific issue covered by the law.

Interestingly, the court majority, lead by Justice Antonin Scalia, were the conservative jurists on the court. Liberals may now use this decision to argue the Tenth Amendment allows states to declare sanctuary despite federal immigration laws because the sanctuary issue is not in the Constitution.

However, the Printz decision may not cleanly cover the issue of sanctuary cities. The majority opinion in Printz argued that the Framers of the Constitution allowed for federal regulation of international and interstate matters but reserved internal matters for the judgment of state legislatures. It may be argued that border security between nations is an international matter.

Cities can choose to not enforce federal immigration law, but they cannot stop the federal government from enforcing it. This is where the denial of federal funds to sanctuary cities comes into play and will ultimately be tested in court.

Despite the legal battle, it seems a basic understanding of what is meant by “the rule of law” is in order for the on-going immigration debate.

The American Bar Association attempted to frame a discussion of “the rule of law” in a three-page document.

The Bar Association dialogue started with questions:

“The rule of law is a term that is often used but difficult to define. A frequently heard saying is that the rule of law means the government of law, not men. But what is meant by “a government of law, not men”? Aren’t laws made by men and women in their roles as legislators? Don’t men and women enforce the law as police officers or interpret the law as judges? And don’t all of us choose to follow, or not to follow, the law as we go about our daily lives? How does the rule of law exist independently from the people who make it, interpret it, and live it?”

The site contains differing views from two civil rights historical figures.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an American suffragist, social activist, abolitionist, and leader of the early women’s rights movement, is quoted: “It is very important in a republic, that the people should respect the laws, for if we throw them to the winds, what becomes of civil government?”

But one can respect laws and still resist, The Rev. Martin Luther King wrote in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail. “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”

The Bar Association comments, “The rule of law is intended to promote stability, but a society that operates under the rule of law must also remain vigilant to ensure the rule of law also serves the interests of justice.”

Strict adherence to laws on the books in relation to a concept of true justice reflects the current debate over immigration issues in this state. Yet, perception by the public of how laws are enforced is as an important part of this debate as is a finally sliced Supreme Court decision on the law. The public’s understanding of the “rule of law” is the tie that keeps in place the foundation of a civil society. So, it is incumbent on all sides of this debate to make clear what is meant in arguing for the “rule of law.”

Joel Fox is editor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily.